As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law.

"Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."

Clinton told the FBI that she didn't factor Powell's advice into her decision to use a personal mail server—a statement that seems obvious based on the tens of thousands of e-mails now being published as the result of lawsuits, congressional and FBI investigations, and Freedom of Information Act requests. Just how far she deviated from that advice is evident in the detailed history gathered by the FBI. Their information on the Clintons' e-mail infrastructure dates back to Hillary Clinton's tenure in the US Senate, and this new release shows how that infrastructure was intertwined with the information technology used by former president Bill Clinton's staff.

Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to an account on her Clintonemail.com domain—a domain hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server occurred the same month she exchanged messages with Powell.

Step 1: Power Mac

The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and network switching hardware in the basement of the Clintons' home. Accounts were set up for Secretary Clinton and her staff by her husband's staff.

But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a decision was made quickly to upgrade the server hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of selling the equipment off.

Step 2: Dude, you’re getting two Dells

Enlarge/ A Dell PowerEdge 2900, the Clintons' Exchange server for the majority of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.

It was kismet, and in March of 2009, Pagliano delivered two servers to Chappaqua—a Dell PowerEdge 2900 running Windows Server and Microsoft Exchange and a Dell PowerEdge 1950 running Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES). Cooper and Pagliano together acquired additional network and storage hardware. Initially, Pagliano said, he believed the servers were for President Clinton and not for the Secretary.

Pagliano acquired an SSL certificate for the mail server to provide added security for remote e-mail access at that time, and the whole configuration was set up in the Clintons' basement. The Power Mac was converted into a workstation for use by the Clinton household staff, and its contents were eventually backed up to an iMac.

Hillary Clinton said that she was unaware that any of this was going on and that she was only vaguely aware that there was now server hardware in the basement.

Backups of the e-mail server were stored to an external Seagate hard drive. Pagliano told the FBI he did differential backups once a day and a full backup weekly. By June of 2011, the backups were getting to be too much for the external drive, and Pagliano upgraded storage to a Cisco network-attached storage (NAS) system.

Sometime in 2013, Pagliano (who would later get immunity from prosecution) started looking to find a new job. That, and "user limitations and reliability concerns" about the server, led staff for both Secretary and President Clinton to start looking to outsource the whole e-mail thing. According to Secretary Clinton, the move to a hosted service was initiated by President Clinton's staff.

Step 3: A hosted Dell private server

Platte River Networks was hired to set up the new hosted mail server, which would run in an Equinix data center in Secaucus, New Jersey. In June of 2013, a PRN employee came and retrieved the server hardware in Chappaqua, taking it to the data center to migrate the software and contents to virtual machines running on a Dell PowerEdge R620. A Datto SIRIS 2000 backup device was set up in the rack with the server, along with a CloudJacket intrusion detection system, two Dell network switches, and two Fortinet Fortigate 80C firewalls. The server ran e-mail for multiple Clinton domains, including Secretary Clinton's clintonemail.com accounts. The Dell server configured by Pagliano remained in the server cage and wasn't fully decommissioned until December 2013.

While this configuration was undoubtedly more secure than a Power Mac in the Clintons' basement, there were a few hiccups. First, the Clintons had requested, according to a PRN employee interviewed by the FBI, that the contents of the server be encrypted so that only mail recipients could read the content. This was not done, largely so that PRN technicians could "troubleshoot problems occurring within user accounts," the FBI memo reports. Also, while the Clintons had requested only local backups, the Datto appliance initially also used Datto's secure cloud backup service until August of 2015.

175 Reader Comments

Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?

Clinton has spent over $6 million on online shills and people to slide content out of view with dislikes and censorship, google her company Correct The Record.

lol, when a pro Hillary Clinton super PAC does it it's a legitimate organization with the laudable goal of "correcting the record". When Vladimir Putin does it it's known as a subversive and disruptive anti-social pro Russian force dubbed the "Russian Troll Army".

Same difference. They're both astroturfing to gain political/strategic advantage.

None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

You must have missed the e-mails where George Soros was directing Clinton to perform certain duties in certain countries to quell uprisings. You are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle - look at the bigger picture that these e-mails have uncovered. A civilian giving orders to a Secretary of State of the US government... You don't see a problem with that?

Just George soro?Pretty sure she was using the private email server to email Satan about destroying Christians in America. And she is secretly an isis operative.

None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

You must have missed the e-mails where George Soros was directing Clinton to perform certain duties in certain countries to quell uprisings. You are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle - look at the bigger picture that these e-mails have uncovered. A civilian giving orders to a Secretary of State of the US government... You don't see a problem with that?

Just George soro?Pretty sure she was using the private email server to email Satan about destroying Christians in America. And she is secretly an isis operative.

Worse still. She's a Clinton. We'd almost be better off if she were all the things you're satirizing conspiracy minded right-wingers for thinking she is.

So she was specifically warned that using a private server would be an end run around public records laws and FOIA requests. The FBI says it totally wasn't used to get around FOIA requests.

Being warned does not magically morph into intent. The intent here is not in question: she wanted to use her Blackberry for email but there was no official support. Not sure about you, but I have been in similar corporate situations. When I worked at WorldCom I set up an ssh tunnel to the IMAP port of our Exchange server and taught my coworkers how to use it with PINE so we could a) check our mail from home and b) could use Linux on our desktops.

In 2016 with the ubiquity of services like Gmail and easy, secure email access on all devices it is easy to forget that things were not always like that.

So she was specifically warned that using a private server would be an end run around public records laws and FOIA requests. The FBI says it totally wasn't used to get around FOIA requests.

Being warned does not magically morph into intent. The intent here is not in question: she wanted to use her Blackberry for email but there was no official support. Not sure about you, but I have been in similar corporate situations. When I worked at WorldCom I set up an ssh tunnel to the IMAP port of our Exchange server and taught my coworkers how to use it with PINE so we could a) check our mail from home and b) could use Linux on our desktops.

In 2016 with the ubiquity of services like Gmail and easy, secure email access on all devices it is easy to forget that things were not always like that.

Ah, i see now. That was her intent, nothing to worry about then. Thank you for making the effort to "Correct the Record".

You've been brainwashed. She did nothing illegal. She violated policy.

And it's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party.

And she's not the Commander-in-Chief so I don't even know how you got the notion that she's responsible for American citizens getting killed. If we put government officials in jail according to how many people died under their watch, George W Bush would be in prison for hundreds and hundreds of years for all the dead in the 911 attack, the thousands of military service personnel that died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the millions of innocent civilian lives that were lost because of his stupidity, not to mention all the lies that were told to justify the war in the first place.

Take your partisan bullshit somewhere else.

Lol....she violated the espionage act! And she had every intent in doing so. If that's not illegal then I don't know what is.

And yes, she may well be responsible for getting Americans killed. If her server was hacked then no doubt she put American lives at risk.

Clearly, Crooked Hillary was more concerned about protecting her own secrets and the Clinton Foundation's secrets more than she was about protecting America's secrets.

You've been brainwashed. She did nothing illegal. She violated policy.

And it's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party.

And she's not the Commander-in-Chief so I don't even know how you got the notion that she's responsible for American citizens getting killed. If we put government officials in jail according to how many people died under their watch, George W Bush would be in prison for hundreds and hundreds of years for all the dead in the 911 attack, the thousands of military service personnel that died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the millions of innocent civilian lives that were lost because of his stupidity, not to mention all the lies that were told to justify the war in the first place.

Take your partisan bullshit somewhere else.

Lol....she violated the espionage act! And she had every intent in doing so. If that's not illegal then I don't know what is.

And yes, she may well be responsible for getting Americans killed. If her server was hacked then no doubt she put American lives at risk.

Clearly, Crooked Hillary was more concerned about protecting her own secrets and the Clinton Foundation's secrets more than she was about protecting America's secrets.

The Power Mac G4 was sold prior to the release of OS X. Thus it's operating system was the Classical Mac OS. The Classical Mac OS had no command line, thus it was practically unhackable remotely. I believe that this was also true of the Power Mac G5.

If the Clinton email had been maintained on either of these two Macs there would be no questions about infiltration by anyone.

The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means.

Could even be as simple as a case of Tinkerbell.

(For those who don't remember: Paris Hilton was way back in the dark ages the first to be 'robbed' of her contact list. One of the password recovery questions was 'What is the name of your favourite pet?' and the mutt in question was always on her arms, everywhere.)

So she was specifically warned that using a private server would be an end run around public records laws and FOIA requests. The FBI says it totally wasn't used to get around FOIA requests.

Being warned does not magically morph into intent. The intent here is not in question: she wanted to use her Blackberry for email but there was no official support. Not sure about you, but I have been in similar corporate situations. When I worked at WorldCom I set up an ssh tunnel to the IMAP port of our Exchange server and taught my coworkers how to use it with PINE so we could a) check our mail from home and b) could use Linux on our desktops.

In 2016 with the ubiquity of services like Gmail and easy, secure email access on all devices it is easy to forget that things were not always like that.

Ah, i see now. That was her intent, nothing to worry about then. Thank you for making the effort to "Correct the Record".

When someone whose account was created 6 days ago replies to a 3 year old subscriber with a strongly implied accusation of astroturfing, one might make some assumptions about astroturfing.

I read this article to say that Powell did the same thing decades ago and the only difference between now and then is that he didn't talk about.

That doesn't make it OK and he should be under investigation as well.

haven't you heard the law doesn't apply to republicans.

"Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[36] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[37] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995"

Did everyone miss the part where hillary decided to wipe the server after foia requests were made and after records were subpoenaed by Congress?

Obstruction of justice is a felony.

Everything you say may be true.However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate) line.

The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of a court order that doesn't actually exist.

Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.

As always seems to be the case the coverup is worse then the crime, certainly so with the Clintons given their history. If any the obstruction of justice hasn't been their attempting to conceal their public records from being properly archived, as required by law and thus being open to being disclosed under FOIA.

Rather it's their efforts after the fact. And that would be potentially lying under oath to investigators and or destruction of/concealing of evidence, in an attempt to explain away the email scandal, and of course try to publicly cast it in the light of just another illegitimate "vast right-wing conspiracy" to get them. Because that's what the Clintons always do when they're backed into a corner.

So she was specifically warned that using a private server would be an end run around public records laws and FOIA requests. The FBI says it totally wasn't used to get around FOIA requests.

Being warned does not magically morph into intent. The intent here is not in question: she wanted to use her Blackberry for email but there was no official support. Not sure about you, but I have been in similar corporate situations. When I worked at WorldCom I set up an ssh tunnel to the IMAP port of our Exchange server and taught my coworkers how to use it with PINE so we could a) check our mail from home and b) could use Linux on our desktops.

In 2016 with the ubiquity of services like Gmail and easy, secure email access on all devices it is easy to forget that things were not always like that.

Ah, i see now. That was her intent, nothing to worry about then. Thank you for making the effort to "Correct the Record".

When someone whose account was created 6 days ago replies to a 3 year old subscriber with a strongly implied accusation of astroturfing, one might make some assumptions about astroturfing.

Assumptions such as... Someone using a newly created account to astroturf is, at best, being amateurishly ham-fisted about it and will meet with limited success. While someone who is using their own legitimate profiles, or long established alternate personas on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Ars, etc., to give the appearance of a legitimately independent grass roots opinion, when they are in fact astroturfing for a Super PAC with an organized political agenda, and are actually parroting it's talking points without disclosing their affiliation with the Super PC as an operative, will meet with much greater success.

Just sayin'.

While i have no way of knowing for sure, i don't think you're actually part of a legitimate astroturfing campaign. Like the one this left-wing "Correct the Record" Super PAC is operating.

My comment was simply tongue-in-check making light of (with a wink) the fact that when Super PACs resort to astroturfing, it muddies the waters and calls into question whether anyone's political opinion on the internet is really sincere anymore, including yours, or is it just another disingenuous non-transparent effort by a political action committee who is astroturfing for political/strategic advantage.

The Clinton email saga is the most amazing of non-stories. An administrative rule was broken. A rule broken by a great many people at the time. That's it. Case closed.

Yet Donald Trump is a an angry buffoonish white supremacist con man intent on doing terrible, but "humane" harm to millions of people. A man who lies and changes his position with nearly every breath and tweet. But never mind that, let's get back to the emails. What the hell, people?

The Clinton email saga is the most amazing of non-stories. An administrative rule was broken. A rule broken by a great many people at the time. That's it. Case closed.

Yet Donald Trump is a an angry buffoonish white supremacist con man intent on doing terrible, but "humane" harm to millions of people. A man who lies and changes his position with nearly every breath and tweet. But never mind that, let's get back to the emails. What the hell, people?

The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?

The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?

How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs.

Speaking of which...

Bill, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and the emailsCorruption in plain sight

Tuesday, June 28: Former President Bill Clinton suddenly appears to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the cabin of her airplane parked on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Secret Service agents deny access to news photos and videos of the visit. They visit for 30 minutes.

Thursday, June 29: Lynch denies that any discussion with Bill Clinton of the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal took place, and states that she expects to accept the recommendation of the FBI as to further actions in the Clinton case. She does not, however, recuse herself or appoint a Special Prosecutor. The FBI also announces that the Clinton interview will take place on this coming Saturday, during the holiday weekend.

Friday, June 30: Hillary Clinton campaign leaks that Loretta Lynch may be retained in her present job under a Hillary Clinton administration.

Saturday, July 1: Hillary Clinton’s long-delayed interview with the FBI takes place. It lasts 3 1/2 hours. Clinton not under oath. FBI Director Comey does not attend, will not reveal who was in attendance.

Tuesday, July 5: FBI Director Comey conducts a press conference without questions. Details a long list of Clinton’s violations, but concludes that he met with prosecutors and decided not to make a criminal referral for either convening a Grand Jury or an indictment because she didn’t mean to do anything bad. He cited “reasonable prosecutors” (presumably the ones he consulted) who would not want to prosecute the case.

Tuesday, July 5: While Comey was making his announcement, President Barack Obama, in a previously scheduled appearance, was campaigning in North Carolina with Hillary Clinton.

Wednesday, July 6: Attorney General Lynch announces that she accepts the recommendation of Comey and will not review the evidence herself.

What really happened appears to be that Bill Clinton successfully conveyed to Loretta Lynch that she would keep her job if Hillary is elected. Lynch then successfully conveyed to Comey that she expected a clean referral from the FBI. Finally, Comey undertook a nearly unprecedented step by publicly announcing all the reasons for a criminal referral, then refusing to follow his own logic. In the meantime, Obama, boss of Lynch and Comey, obviously knew well in advance what the outcome of this charade would be and scheduled accordingly."

Bill, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and the emailsCorruption in plain sight

It's all certainly suspicious, but it's also entirely circumstantial. Looks terrible at a glance, but proves absolutely nothing in and of itself.

The weakest link in this conspiratorial chain of suspicious meetings is Comey himself. He has no love for the Clintons, has absolutely nothing to gain by conspiring with them, nor anything to lose by siding against them. There's no reason for him to do anything but what he considers to be his job.

...well, besides knowing his conclusions could possibly pave the way for a Trump presidency. I imagine that scares the shit out of a lot of people.

The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?

How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs.

SNIP

So please explain how this is any different from Trump? He doesn't bend the rules to benefit himself? He doesn't scratch backs?

The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?

How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs.

SNIP

So please explain how this is any different from Trump? He doesn't bend the rules to benefit himself? He doesn't scratch backs?

Sure he does. And he's fair game for the media and the public to scrutinize and make their own judgments about too. It's not like his life isn't an open book in many ways and open to scrutiny.

I mean really, what is you're point? That the bar isn't low enough for Hillary too?

I will add there's one way it's very different from the Clintons doing so. As of yet Trump hasn't done so while simultaneously holding elected office. Positions like Governor, President, Senator, and Secretary of State.

I mean really, what is you're point? That the bar isn't low enough for Hillary too?

I will add there's one way it's very different from the Clintons doing so. As of yet Trump hasn't done so while simultaneously holding elected office. Positions like Governor, President, Senator, and Secretary of State.

I'm sure Trumps one saving grace here is that he has yet to abuse a position of power because he has yet to hold one. Though considering all actions and evidence, I don't have much faith that he's going to somehow turn out better than this current bunch we've saddled ourselves with.

Hell, all things considered, he'll probably be worse. His reputation in the private sector is far from sterling, and his campaign hasn't exactly filled anyone but his diehard hangers-on with confidence. I mean comeon. His whole shtick is that he's a loudmouth bully that cajoles, coerces, and steps on anyone who stands in his way. How some people translate this into him becoming a fairminded, quote-unquote law and order president, capable of sweeping all the backscratching and corruption out of Washington is beyond me.

I can understand people not liking Hillary. I can almost emphasize with them on that matter. What I can't understand is this idea that Trump is a better alternative, or, even worse, exactly what America needs. I'm more willing to begrudgingly settle on 4 years of Hillary Clinton than to put my faith in Donald J. Trump.

The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?

How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs.

SNIP

So please explain how this is any different from Trump? He doesn't bend the rules to benefit himself? He doesn't scratch backs?

Sure he does. And he's fair game for the media and the public to scrutinize and make their own judgments about too. It's not like his life isn't an open book in many ways and open to scrutiny.

I mean really, what is you're point? That the bar isn't low enough for Hillary too?

I will add there's one way it's very different from the Clintons doing so. As of yet Trump hasn't done so while simultaneously holding elected office. Positions like Governor, President, Senator, and Secretary of State.

The point is that after decades of investigations, the grand conclusion is that the Clinton's are:

Politicians.

Seriously, that is about the worst that has been found. If any other politician were investigated to the extent the Clinton's have been there would be roughly the same amount of sewage on offer. Really, the only difference between the Clinton's and most any other politician is that there is a money-making industry devoted to criminalizing their lunch order. So what if Trump hasn't done any of this crap as a politician yet, he certainly has done all of it as a "businessman". Is there any doubt that he would if elected? Heck, just look at how his campaign is lining his own pockets.

Is Clinton fit to be President? No. And in an election that didn't have Trump as the alternative she would be complete and total toast. But since Trump is worse on absolutely every measure she is who we're stuck with.

Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

"multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

except for no, we dont know that there was not much damaging information, because she wiped the server and didnt hand over everything as instructed

None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

You must have missed the e-mails where George Soros was directing Clinton to perform certain duties in certain countries to quell uprisings. You are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle - look at the bigger picture that these e-mails have uncovered. A civilian giving orders to a Secretary of State of the US government... You don't see a problem with that?

Just George soro?Pretty sure she was using the private email server to email Satan about destroying Christians in America. And she is secretly an isis operative.

the difference between the other posters claim and yours, is that you can see the email in question for yourself.

The Clinton email saga is the most amazing of non-stories. An administrative rule was broken. A rule broken by a great many people at the time. That's it. Case closed.

Yet Donald Trump is a an angry buffoonish white supremacist con man intent on doing terrible, but "humane" harm to millions of people. A man who lies and changes his position with nearly every breath and tweet. But never mind that, let's get back to the emails. What the hell, people?

Yeah usually mass deportations don't go so well. It's as if once they return to Mexico they continue life being Mexican, and not jobless, homeless, or hungry. If he was actually successful in rounding up millions it would be the worst possible outcome for both countries.